"The public perception of the climate problem is somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, the problem is perceived to be so complex that it cannot be approached without massive computer programs. On the other hand, the physics is claimed to be so basic that the dire conclusions commonly presented are considered to be self-evident."- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."- Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

With the release of Al Gore's propaganda movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' and with the help of the media the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. You will learn that there is no empirical evidence that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of the mild 0.6c increase in temperature over the last 100 years, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, Al Gore and his movie are a fraud, there is no "consensus" on the cause of global warming, the earth has been warmer in the past then it is today, the land based temperature stations are biased and their temperature records have been "adjusted", Antarctica is not melting, Arctic sea ice cannot effect sea level, sea levels are rising millimeters not feet, computer climate models are worthless, polar bears are not endangered or dying, droughts and hurricanes are not caused or made worse by global warming and there is extensive evidence of natural causes for global warming such as increased solar activity and orbital variations.

The current man-made global warming hysteria is largely driven by the environmentalist movement in an attempt to reshape western society away from capitalism by implementing state control (socialism) over private energy usage (Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade). These environmentalists wish to get rid of the suburbs, SUVs, single family homes and return western society to a neo-urbanistic state of living. This is because the current environmentalist movement is filled with ex-communists and neo-socialists who have long ago abandoned science and replaced it with their politically motivated environmental "religion". Don't believe me? Go ask any "environmentalist" - socialism or capitalism? No, not all scientists even those who support man-made global warming theory seek these politically motivated intentions but their position has been distorted and exaggerated for political gain by extremists. I have created this page to help shed light on what you have not been told.

Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record.

Judge, "In scene 20, Mr Gore states 'that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand'. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."

3. ERROR: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

Judge, "According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future"

4. ERROR: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

Judge, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."

5. ERROR: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Judge, "it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."

6. ERROR: Lake Chad.

Judge, "The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."

7. ERROR: Hurricane Katrina.

Judge, "In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that."

8. ERROR: Death of polar bears.

Judge, "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. ...it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description."

9. ERROR: Coral reefs.

Judge, "separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult."

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, 1934

Truths:A computer program can be written to get whatever computer generated results that you want.Computer climate models are all code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them.

Questions:- Can you program a computer to get whatever answer you want?- How can imperfect computer code give an accurate answer by running the code for a longer time?- If a climate model's code is updated how can previous results be relevant?- If the science is settled why are all climate models not identical?

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], "Pray, Mr. Babbage," if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right "answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." - Charles Babbage, Computer Pioneer, 1864

"...all of our models have errors which mean that they will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective of how well they are initialized." - James Annan, William Connolley, RealClimate.org

"These codes are what they are - the result of 30 years and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not professional software engineers), around a dozen different software platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to fortran 95 on massively parallel systems. [...] No complex code can ever be proven 'true' (let alone demonstrated to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive." - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..."- Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world’s most distinguished economists [...] looked at three proposals, including the Kyoto Protocol, for dealing with climate change by reducing emissions of carbon. The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993-2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change."

Benny Peiser's paper has NOT been refuted. Propaganda sites continue to intentionally distort Dr. Peiser's clear position on this:

"Naomi Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993–2003) using the keywords "global climate change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts. [...] I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view'. In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change." - Benny Peiser

The fact remains that Oreskes deliberately and deceptively called a paper "The scientific consensus on climate change" while using the search term "global climate change" (N. Oreskes (2005) Correction. Science, Vol. 307, Issue 5708, 355) thus leaving out 11,000 papers! Oreskes cleary cherry picked papers. This alone debunks her study. Even still as a direct criticism, every part of Peiser's study stands except that when you criticize only Oreskes' cherry picked papers (928 not 12,000) the 34 papers Peiser found doubting AGW may not have been included in Oreskes' paper. No kidding! So he withdrew only this as a direct criticism of her paper. The rest of his criticism remains such as only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. Removing the 34 papers is irrelevant as Peiser's study cleary shows that no consensus exists and Oreskes was not looking at all the papers (928 out of 12,000). Conclusion: Oreske's paper is debunked and worthless.

Arctic Ocean pack ice = 0.01% Fraction of world ice - The melting of floating ice will not change sea level: the mass of this ice is equal to that of the water it displaces (watch the water level in a cup of floating ice cubes as they melt).

QUOTE

Based on what we know now, in the next 100 years a rise in sea level of 0.1 meters (4 inches) would not be surprising; those predicting changes of 0.5-2 meters (1.5-7 feet) are using flawed models.

"Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free."

"With the charts and logbooks we can compare the ice edge as it was. ...but there has been a steady decrease of the ice starting long before the industrial age" - Dr. Terje Loyning, Norwegian Polar Institute

Various glaciers worldwide have been in retreat since the 1800s or the end of the little ice age and thus cannot be caused by man-made CO2. Glacial melting is also a good thing because it increase the available amount of fresh water.

Greenland lost an average of 195 cubic kilometres of ice per year between 2003 and 2008, which is enough to cause an annual increase in the global sea level of half a millimetre, or 5 cm (1.96 in) over the course of the next century

Fears that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says Mitchell ­Taylor, the Government of Nunavut's director of wildlife research. [...] While he agrees that seals are essential food for bears as they fatten up during the spring and summer months - seal blubber makes up half of the bears' energy intake - he also suspects bears will be able to supplement their diet with other foods, such as walrus. During the summer months polar bears may also forage on berries, sedges and other plants, as well as bird eggs, to supplement their diet. And Taylor also points out female polar bears go nine months without eating at all during pregnancy. Besides, Taylor says he and numerous Inuit hunters have seen bears catch seal without the presence of sea ice. Bears sometimes find a place on shore to pounce on seals swimming by. Or they may catch seals caught in tidal pools, or sneak up on their prey at night. Taylor even suggests polar bears may float still on the water to fool seals into thinking they are hunks of sea ice.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, about 20 distinct polar bear populations currently exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. Of those distinct populations only two, representing about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing. At the same time, 10 populations representing approximately 45.4 percent of the total population are stable, and 2 populations representing about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears are increasing. The status of the remaining populations is unknown.

Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears, a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century.

For most subpopulations, population counts over time suggest a slight increase in the last 10-25 years.

Pollution:

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science

- The United States has sharply reduced air pollution levels, despite large increases in nominally "polluting" activities- Areas in the United States with the highest pollution levels have improved the most- Air quality in the United States will continue to improve- Regulators and environmental activists exaggerate air pollution levels and obscure positive trends in the United States- Air pollution affects far fewer people, far less often, and with far less severity than is commonly believed.

- Growing evidence that the tropical rainforests may now be expanding faster than they are being cut down.- The world's most severe environmental problems, are overwhelmingly problems of poverty in developing nations.- No American or Western European city ranks among the top 50 cities in the world for air pollution in a World Bank ranking.- Air pollution levels are falling in the 10 most polluted cities in the United States, by as much as 27 percent over the last decade in the case of fine particulates in Los Angeles.- Recent ice core studies have found that levels of heavy metals in the atmosphere declined substantially during the 20th century.- Stratospheric ozone -- the good kind of ozone, akin to good cholesterol in blood -- appears to have reversed its long-term decline and is now increasing over the U.S. The level of ozone-destroying chemical compounds in the atmosphere declined 12 percent from 1995 through 2006.- The U.S. Geological Survey sampling of drinking water drawn from surface waters in 17 areas around the continental United States found very low (non-hazardous) or no presence of 258 different man-made chemicals.- The health of U.S. ocean fisheries has improved substantially over the last few years, according to the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service’s “Fish Stock Sustainability Index.”

- The UN’s State of the Future report notes that “People around the world are becoming healthier, wealthier, better educated, more peaceful, and increasingly connected and they are living longer,” and expects this positive trend to continue.- Net forest loss continues to decline globally and has been reversed in Asia.- Net deforestation in Brazil has fallen by two-thirds over the last four years.- In the eastern United States, recent EPA data show a 60-percent reduction in sulfur-dioxide levels since the year 2000, and a decline in emissions of nitrogen oxides (an ozone precursor) of more than 50 percent.- In Los Angeles, air-quality regulators reported a significant decline in health risk from air pollution.- The United States is now gaining wetlands.- Rare fish species have been observed returning to the Detroit River for the first time in nearly a century.- Russia reported significant progress in remediating the Aral Sea, site of one of the world’s greatest ecological disasters. Russia is slowly restoring the lake’s natural water level, and reintroducing native fish and wildlife species.- U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell by 1.5 percent in 2006.

- Global mean sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)- "Computer Models" project a sea level rise of only 7-23 inches (0.18-0.59m) in the next 100 years. (IPCC)

Averaging the mean values from the tide-gauges provides an approximate 20th Century relative sea level rise trend of 3.53 mm/year, which is double the global-mean. This implies a local component of approximately 2 mm/year for the New Jersey coast which can be partially attributed to land subsidence and sediment compaction.

A tide gage embedded above compacting sediment loses elevation, producing a water level record that indicates apparent sea-level rise equal to the loss in gage elevation. The USGS monitors subsidence in the marsh behind Atlantic City using an extensometer that penetrates 320m of section. Between 1980 and 2000, this extensometer measured 29mm of vertical compaction (1.5mm/yr) at this site. The Atlantic City tide gage rests above the same sedimentary section, plus surface sands deposited in historic time. The compaction of buried and surficial clastic sediment is an explanation for high apparent rates of sea-level rise (about 4.0mm/yr) at Atlantic City, Sandy Hook, and Hampton. On the Atlantic side of Florida, apparent rates of sea-level rise are generally lower than those from the mid-Atlantic coast, probably because historically recent calcium carbonate deposition in clastic pore space strengthens the Florida sediment, reducing compaction.

The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. If you look carefully at the graphs, you will see that the carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years.

The Medieval Warm Period project is meant to be a database of MWP studies not a multiproxy reconstruction. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the studies was done and found that the peak warmth of the MWP was typically greater than the peak warmth of the current warm period (CWP). And that earlier period of greater warmth occurred at a time when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was fully 100 ppm less than it is today, indicative of the fact that the earth has experienced equivalent or warmer temperatures than those of the present when there was much less CO2 in the air, which suggests that whatever was responsible for the greater warmth of the MWP could easily be responsible for the lesser warmth of the CWP.

"Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." - CRU

"A consensus of 125 of the world’s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between ...climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones." - (WMO)

"Hurricane Sandy - which was, technically, not a hurricane by the time it buzzed into the Jersey Shore - was a terribly destructive cyclone. But blaming it on global warming, ...is scientifically ludicrous." - Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology

"In this case [Hurricane Sandy], the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. [...] Neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decade." - Martin P. Hoerling, Ph.D. Meteorologist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

"You can't take one rogue event like this [Hurricane Sandy] and start ascribing anything but the current three phasing conditions that are leading to it," - David A. Robinson, Ph.D. New Jersey State Climatologist.

"The idea that the devastation from Sandy was caused by global warming is wrong for many reasons. Those pushing this agenda are ignoring meteorological history, or purposefully leaving it out of the discussion. ...we have seen much stronger storms hit these areas before with more frequency, [...] Hurricane Sandy generated record flooding in NYC and NJ because the storm's track was optimal for generating storm surge in those areas, not because of global warming. [...] Was it global warming in the 1950's when the East Coast was consistently devastated by hurricanes more powerful than Sandy?" - Joe Bastardi, Meteorologist, WeatherBell Analytics

Researchers cannot assume that the Atlantic tropical cyclone database presents a complete depiction of frequency of events before the advent of satellite imagery in the mid-1960s. Moreover, newly available advanced tools and techniques are also contributing toward monitoring about one additional Atlantic tropical cyclone per year since 2002. Thus large, long-term ‘trends’ in tropical cyclone frequency are primarily manifestations of increased monitoring capabilities and likely not related to any real change in the climate in which they develop.

Global hurricane frequency and/or intensity has not been observed to undergo any significant trends as a result of the global warming of the last 30 years for frequency and for the last 20 years for intensity

...until organized reconnaissance began in 1944, the two major sources of information on tropical cyclones were land stations and ships at sea. Undoubtedly, during this early period some storms went undetected.

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh? I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them.

"Irregular motion of a dynamical system that is deterministic, sensitive to initial conditions, and impossible to predict in the long term with anything less than an infinite and perfect representation of analog values"

What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. ...we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high. [...] At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255.

...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]

The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.

"I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann's without showing alternates. [...] It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses that Mann is an outlier" - Curtis Covey, Research Scientist, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist

"It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics." - Ian Jolliffe, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Statistics

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. ...The uncertainties increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified. [...]

Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" [...]

Prior to about 1600, ...periods of medieval warmth are seen in a number of diverse records, including historical information from Europe and Asia; cave deposits; marine and lake sediments; and ice cores from Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Tibet, and the equatorial Andes. [...]

Using proxies sensitive to hydrologic variables (including moisture-sensitive trees...) to take advantage of observed correlations with surface temperature could lead to problems [...]

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents.

FACT: All the NAS study concluded was that recent temperatures are warmer than the Little Ice Age. No kidding!

We share the assessment of the NRC committee that the evidence for unprecedented warming of a single decade or even a single year in times prior to 1500, or so, is stretching the scientific evidence too far. However, this was the key claim made in the contested 1998-nature and 1999-GRL-papers by Mann et al.

With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. [...]

Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used.